Clinton finds a good new talking point

Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:14 PM by Chuck Todd

From NBC's Chuck Todd
Clinton has come up with a very effective sales pitch on health care by comparing it to Social Security and Medicare.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

The problem is that Social Security has major problems. Many people that are paying into it will never see a dime out of it. Comparing her health care to a flawed program isn't exactly selling me on it.

Craig (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:20 PM)

Too bad her mannerism will not allow people to remember it

troy (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:20 PM)

Exactly. How would he enforce the child mandates and people gaming his system. Can you fact check his Massachusetts comments?

Alan, NJ (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 PM)

When she talks about Medicare and Social Security, she is only speaking to half of her base: Older people in this country.

Sean, Voorhees, NJ (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 PM)

Talking. Yeah, she does a lot of it. Been a little short on coming up with a real plan. Tried it in the 1990s, I think. Failed miserably. What gives anyone the idea she's going to succeed as president? Don't think so. Old politics. Old ideas. Divider. Confronter. "Right-wing conspiracy." Shall I go on?

John, Columbia, TN (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:22 PM)

But, her analogy is misdirected: govt is mandated to provide either her or Obama's plan, just like govt is mandated to provide Medicare and Soc Sec. There is NO DIFFERENCE on the mandate on the govt to provide and make these plans available. But there are folks who choose not to take advantage of Medicare benefits and even SSA or SSDI or SSI benefits. So, Obama's plan that allows people to opt out if they want to take that gamble, but still mandates the opportunity be provided to all citizens.

RJ Indianapolis, IN (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:22 PM)

Hillary wants a debate on the issues, but when facts/issues don't align with what is politically expedient for her, she quickly resorts to the same old Washington attack dog ploys and plithy ad hominem remarks that she demonstrated in her 'xerox' comment. She consistently references her strong convictions in 1994 for universal healthcare...how did that work out? the unbending refusal not to negotiate, not to compromise? How many people were prevented from receiving some form of healthcare, who otherwise couldn't afford it, b/c she couldn't work with the other side?

jacob gunden, wichita, ks (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:22 PM)

This is not going to work

Bee (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:23 PM)

Though completely inaccurate. The'mandate' under Social Security and Medicare is on the Government to provide the care; her health plan is not a government mandate so the mandate is put upon the individual who must be punished if they do not purchase the insurance. I think if she continually tries to push this point these holes will be exposed.

Ross, Columbus, OH (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:23 PM)

But the mandates are kind of a scary thing. I really hate to see what the Republicans do to Dems if that's what we're going with. We have been trying to get "universal" health care since the civil war. Each step forward was part of a push for health care for all and ended with incremental, yet important steps.

We are not going to get universal coverage this time either. What we might be able to pass is what Obama is suggesting. If we go with Clinton's mandates (and mandates only work if they have teeth--what will Repubs do with that!) we will get nothing.

Oh, and Social Security was not universal at first, either. In fact, not even teachers paid into it until the mid to late 80s.

Change will need to be incremental. Obama knows that. That's why he'll be successful at creating change, and why Clinton's "I can make change" comes out tinny.

Kathie Smith, Minneapolis, MN (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:24 PM)

Sales pitch or no sales pitch... The bottom line is folks will be penalized under her health care plan. She has yet to "sell" how she will collect on those funds. Obama's plan is comprehensive and realistic. And he doesn't want to force folks to buy it if they cannot afford it. I would much rather have a say so in whether I want to buy it or not!

Pam, Houston (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:24 PM)

I disagree, Chuck. I think this just plays into the "Hillarycare" and socialism charges that the Right will lob. I don't think that treating people like children and taking choice away from them is going to be the more popular position. Now, it might be the better policy; I don't claim to be an expert on that. But politically, Obama's got the more tenable position.

LHarris, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:24 PM)

social security and medicare has fines and mandates? im sorry. i think its her sly move to blanket her coverage as effective when it clearly is not. and its not effective in Massachusetts. Obama was brilliant to identify that hc program as a very good example of how flawed that idea really is.

jennifer, IL (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:25 PM)

Effective? What are you talking about....She sounds like a child trying to be heard.....

And she also sound nervous and a little less-confident

Plain and simple she needs to get some rest

PBrown (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:26 PM)

True but it also plays to the Socialist message that the Republican's will push. As American Adults we do not want to be told that we HAVE to buy crappy insurance. Some of us have great insurance and do not want our bosses to switch us to a government plan where we pay the same or more and have fewer options. I have seen Medicare up close and personal with my parents and it is a subpar program that tries to be too much for too many and is a big step down for most people after their Retirement coverage ends.

S, Ruff (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:29 PM)

Except that Medicare is in running on a defeicit and Social Security is grossly mismanaged. The last thing the American people want is for the government to manage our health care.

No More Status Quo, Philly PA (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:31 PM)

I'd prefer to try health care Obama's way first. We could go to a more enforcement oriented approach later if Obama's way doesn't work, and if the American people said that's the way to go.

Sue, Chicago (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:32 PM)

I believe comparing health care plans to SS sounds good at first, but it also seems like a huge bloated system that will be bankrupt in no time. Channeling LBJ there in Austin...

steve, houston, tx (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:33 PM)

I think I am fallin gin love with Chuck Todd. I told my wife that I want to grow out a Chuck-tee(aka: goatee). I just don't think I can carry it as well as my new man-crush. I just love math skills and his sexy wit.

Jeff Tyler (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:36 PM)

COME ON AMERICANS,,,,,,,WHEN I WAS PREGENANT ,,,KAISER REFUSED TO ENROLL ME,,,,,,,WHEN I NEEDED IT ,,,,,U WANT THAT FOR UR FAMILY,WITH UNIVERSAL CARE ,,,NOBODY CAN DENY U FOR NO REASON,,,,,

AISHA (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:37 PM)

His retort about the Massachusetts plan was long overdue - and one I think he tried to give in the California debate before he ran out of time. Those in the state who have not bought into the plan now face huge tax penalties as you have to document your coverage on state returns. Since Mitt Romney took out the penalties on business for not supplying care programs, it is all on the consumer to accept very basic plans with giant deductibles. All most of those plans do it protect the insurance companies and hospitals from being stuck with large unpaid bills from longterm and emergency care. If you buy Hillary's trickle-down argument about how the companies will simply pass those costs on to everyone then I guess it has been good in that one respect, but that is putting a lot of faith in the good nature of insurance companies to pass along the savings as well. Overall, the plan has not been as it was advertised and Obama is right to question whether it has actually been of benefit to working-class consumers.

Scott (Massachusetts) (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:37 PM)

WE ARE AMERICANS,,,WE HAVE TO THINK OF UNFORTUNATE FOLKS,,,WHO CAN,T AFFORD INSURANCE ,,,,,SO WITH UNIVERSAL CARE ,,,THOSE LOW INCOME PEOPLE WILL RECIEVE MUST HEALTH CARE TOO,,,,AND WITH NO COST OR SOME COST DEPENDING ON UR INCOME,,,,,

AISHA (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:38 PM)

Her plan, with mandates and fines will not pass Congress. The coverage may not be good and the premiums too high for people to afford. I see that only the insurance companies will benefit from Hillary's mandate. Actually, Obama's plan is something that is more likely to be implemented. However, as someone who works in the healthcare delivery system, I must state that universal health insurance isn't the same as universal access to health care. This is a complex problem and I think that although his plan is more realistic, both candidates need a more complex approach. The philosophy of health care delivery is a difficult problem and although these debates are good, they're only a start. It may be that a single payer plan will ultimately be the answer (right Dennis?).

The comparison to Social Security which is a cash benefit and Medicare which covers everything is bogus.
Obama '08

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:42 PM)

I think its more like FEMA, FEMA for you health needs

john in anchorage (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:43 PM)

This is absurd. Social Security is for the elders who can not work as a young.

Philip, NY (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:43 PM)

I have said it before and I will say it again:

When you say something STUPID in all caps it is STILL STUPID! Stop yelling at us!

Chad, Salt Lake City Utah (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:43 PM)

This isn't new. She's even used it in past debates IIRC.

Steve, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:48 PM)

I am sick of hearing how great BO is from the pundits - I think from now on I will only listen to regular news and skip CNN and MSNBC.

Donna - Antioch, TN (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:50 PM)

Universal health care is a staple of the democratic party, and there is a reason for this - It is the most American way to approach medical care! Clinton has a real shot to finally make it happen in the United States, and that is one of the many reasons that she is the best canidate for the presidency.

Stephanie, Oklahoma City (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:54 PM)

Alan,

How do you not get the difference between mandating an adult to purchase healthcare...and mandating a child?

A child is legally unable to purchase healthcare!...A child does NOT have a choice! Stop repeating broken sound bites...
and in reference to your "fact check" plea...I lived in MA when it was passed, and for the folowing year, and he is in fact correct...

Here's the real problem with mandates..."Mandate" is just a word...without enforcement.

By Hillary's own repeated estimate, 15 million people wouldn't buy healthcare even if it was cheaper..

Still following me?...O.K, as most of you know, Healthcare, even after either Obama's or Clinton's proposal will be at least a couple of thousand a year...NOW, if you mandate coverage, and impose a fine...it would have to be less the the annual cost of healthcare (for obvious reasons)...

So, If Clinton's position is that 15 million will not pay 2000+ thousand annually if they are not "mandated" to do so...when faced with a $500 mandate...there WERE MA residence who opted to accept the fine and still not get it...That is what he was refering to.

Vince, Madison NJ (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:55 PM)

The writer above was way off, it is OBAMA who wants fines tariff's. Hillary's plan covers everyone. This is long over due. GO HILLARY GO!!!!!!!!!!1 YES WE WILL!!!!!

melodymg snohomish (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:07 PM)

Not an effective sales pitch. lol... First Read, think it through please, then get back to us. It would be an effective sales pitch to people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Michael D. Hafer (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:08 PM)

they both say they want health plan but it is not for the people worked for it like my wife her meds is almost what she draws but i know people who has never worked and draw s.s.i -;food stamps-;and most of all they get 100%health care and abuse it

kenneth somerset ;kentucky (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:11 PM)

Obama, "The Pied Piper", is great at blovating. He certainly makes his Speach Teacher proud! Just where is he taking our country (or is this now a suburb of Africa - as his church preaches)? We ALL want change, but one can't do it alone like he PROMISES. Last time, I checked I didn't see "Tattoo" greet me as I got off the plane.

Mary Samson (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:16 PM)

Medicare Part A (Hospitalization ONLY) is mandated. Medicare Part B (Healthcare - Doctors visits, etc) is NOT mandatory. It is voluntary and required participants to pay a premium.

Sounds more like Obama's Plan than Hilary's. Bad comparison.

Kent Bynum, Oklahoma City, OK (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:25 PM)

It was John Edwards that first brought up the social security comparison in the Nevada debate...plagarisim????

Keith, Jeff City (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:27 PM)

Obama seemed more tentative tonight. Clinton was given most questions first so it made Obama look like him was saying dido plus a few more lines. Clinton was more assured of what she wanted to say. That confidence and straight forward delivery shows me she has the experience to be President. This is something that Obama did not show me. I have been looking for an excuse to join the surge, but Obama has not showed me he has the experience. He is a great inspirer, but that is not enough. He could gain that experience as a Vice President or more years in the Senate.

Mark, VA (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:37 PM)

Just what we need, another program that will make the country broke.

Ken James (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:41 PM)

Senator Obama - all hat and no cattle. Best line of the night.

To the Obama supporters who booed - you showed us all the class you had!

Senator Obama - all hat and no cattle. Best line of the night. (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:42 PM)

YES, EXACTLY. Obama's plan is what has been promised for decades but the fact is, if there's no mandate, it doesn't work. Obama's plan is the same-old strategy. CLINTON IS CHANGE - SMARTER, EXPERIENCED CHANGE.

Mike, Huntersville, NC (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:43 PM)

"The problem is that Social Security has major problems. Many people that are paying into it will never see a dime out of it." -- Craig

Did you know that many people will never see a dime out of their car insurance and not a dime out of their home insurance. What a scandal. What flawed policy. Luckily we will all see a return on our life insurance.

nuanced (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:45 PM)

Jeff, you are thinking about the wrong kind of mandate. ;)

nuanced (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:50 PM)

I think it's an excellent comparison. Folks, what you don't realize is that you are already paying for people who don't have health care! It in your taxes. It's in the cost of your dr visits and Rx's.

People just don't truly understand the facts and how much more money this will put in or pockets in the long run, and how much more healthy we all will be.

MK, Orlando, FL (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:50 PM)

Hey Troy if she were a guy you would say "he" was strong and powerful and presidential, right Troy?

Jerry, NY NY (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:53 PM)

Clinton again want's to force her brand of health care on the american people. She tried this in the early 1990's behind closed doors, which resulted in the republican revolution of 1994. Obama I believe will bring together experts (including Clinton) to arive at a plan that the american people can live with.
It's definitely a matter of style. Clinten's devisive force and Obamas bringing about a coalition.

Mike, Hopkinsville Ky (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:58 PM)

Speaking of Massachusetts, look at the way the voters feel suckered by Deval Patrick. We all fell for "Yes we can!". What we are getting is not we can't unless we suck up to the gaming industry and open casinos all over the state. NOT what we thought we were getting. See Joan Vennochi's Opinion column in today's Boston Globe for the true picture. We regret hiring a rookie, and lost a year on the learning curve.

Kathy Kelley, Boston, MA (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:06 PM)

We make people wear helmets, we force people to get out of pools and lakes to body check, we punish people who have no car insurance, all pay taxes. The list is endless and much of it has minimal positive effect on the whole of the population. Yet, requiring insurance would have a total effect of 1. minimal coverage that would provide better health care, especially for the less wealthy, 2. ultimate lower costs for those who now have to pay for the uninsured. It's that simple. Yes,requiring that you have insurance is better for the common good and for the good of the individual. That's good government, nothing more.

mexed, san antonio, texas (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:06 PM)

In a general election, Obama's plan is going to be more palatable to Republicans than Hillary's mandate. Republicans will see Hillary's mandate as making them pay for some poor sick child who can't get health care, and they want no part of that. Me first!

Deb Winslow (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:09 PM)

Hillary should be claiming victory for her earlier health care efforts.

In 1993 it made sense that she had failed. Did she make mistakes back then? Yes. From a 2008 vantage point, we should recoginize that Harry and Louise proved the country was not then ready for the idea of universal health care as a moral issue.

Standing on the sholders of Ted Kennedy's efforts in the 1970's, along with many others, Hillary's hard work and willingness to continue despite the constant barrage she has faced, almost since we first heard of her, is why this nation may now, at long last, embrace the idea.

That is change we can believe in!

Torri Connelly, San Antonio, Texas (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:10 PM)

Social Security is not mandatory to railroad workers, some fire departments and police agencies.

s comp, Chas., WV (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:15 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=689654